Pirates Shatter Dream

[Capt Phil]

Sailing in the area aside, I recall being in Mogadishu, Somalia a number of years ago while attached to an oil consortium and saw first hand what animals these peope are. Piracy is funded by warlords who populate the countryside and they have no compulsion about taking anyones life if there is a profit to be made or it advances or preserves their economic aims. The best thing the rest of the civilzed world could do is destroy every living thing within its border and start over. Brutality is a way of life and expected by all who live there.
It is now a haven for Al Quaeda and a variety of ruthless, radical muslim causes.
Folks who have never been there should refrain from applying contemporary western values and laws in judging or expecting outcomes based on western beliefs.
IMO, anyone who sails through those waters is not just irresponsible but clearly showing terrible judgement. Capt Phil

[foolishsailor]

Very surprised he didn't ship from India to cape town. Much cheaper and it is vastly easier to sail away from cape town than too cape town. Could have kept sailing. Me thinks it was as much the lad leaving the edge of the milk run as anything? If you have to head south from Cochin versus west it changes the game a bit...

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

This person has followed the majority advice, and freighted his ship out of danger. Imagine the flaming if he had decided to risk it, and gotten captured.

Ain't that the turth!!!

And the point isn't that there are so many other places to cruise to or that he could done something else; it's the pirates are an issue!

But some of the stated solutions here seem harsh even to my hawk like thinking.

[Capt Phil]

Call 'em like I see 'em, Don... I've seen a lot over my 7 decades in every corner of the world but nothing even compares to Somalia. Uganda and Kenya during the day were pretty rough but Mogadishu and the coastal area of Somalia beats them all for the shear brutality and lack of any human sensibility. Jungle animals have better behavior IMO. The Russian mercs who guard commercial vessels transiting the waters understand who they are dealing with and respond appropriately. Capt Phil

[conachair]

For those who have sailed those waters, why not go south and into Atlantic via Good Hope, what does everyone else do?

[Triton318]

Originally Posted by medicrene

My wife and I are planning to start our circumnavigation from San Francisco this October. Our plan has always been to sail to the edge of pirate territory and then load the boat onto a ship for transport. I would be interested in hearing from people who have shipped their sailboats to learn about how it is done and the costs they have incurred.

Well I guess it won't really be a circumnavigation then, will it? An east-to-west circumnavigation can be undertaken without going through the Suez Canal.

[Tom Hildebrandt]

Current safe routing Sri Lanka, Maldives, Chagos, Reunion, (possibly Madagascar) Mozambique, South Africa, Namibia, St Helena, Brazil, and South America then Trinidad.

In 2007/2008 I made the trip a bit different, Thailand, Maldives, Chagos, Seychelles, Mayott, Madagascar, South Africa, etc. Probably could still be done with minimal risk, but the first option would reduce piracy to nothing.

Cheers

Tom

[maxingout]

Ship the boat to Cyprus, Turkey or Israel and carry on.

[Aussiesuede]

If the guy was serious about continuing, then he would do so. There are a ton of cheaper options than shipping the boat back to the US, many already mentioned in this thread. Botto line, for reasons only known to him, he's ready to exit cruising and this was his parting shot on his way out.

[CarinaPDX]

It sounds like if he can't have it his way he'll take his marbles and go home.

Yes, he was wise to not sail through the area. The situation is nothing new and he should have been anticipating it for years ahead. To arrive in India and be outraged that the US Navy wasn't going to provide for his safe passage is absurd. As noted, he had options. If he had his heart set on a circumnavigation then head to South Africa. Otherwise he could ship her to the Med. To go home because he couldn't circumnavigate through the Red Sea is very strange.

"Dream Shattered By Pirates" is the title of the article. I expected this to be about something pirates actually did to this man. The fact that he had to modify his cruising itinerary to avoid a hazard doesn't qualify as a shattered dream in my book. There are many places in this world that I would like to visit if they were only safer, or easier to get to, or whatever. We all live in a constrained world - get over it and make the best of it.

I am really unimpressed by this - could you tell?

[jeremiason]

Originally Posted by Tom Hildebrandt

Current safe routing Sri Lanka, Maldives, Chagos, Reunion, (possibly Madagascar) Mozambique, South Africa, Namibia, St Helena, Brazil, and South America then Trinidad.

In 2007/2008 I made the trip a bit different, Thailand, Maldives, Chagos, Seychelles, Mayott, Madagascar, South Africa, etc. Probably could still be done with minimal risk, but the first option would reduce piracy to nothing.

Cheers

Tom

Pirates have been operting within 300 miles of India and as far south as the Maldives, since the security forces don't routinely patrol those areas (See below articles).

U.S. Military: Somali Pirates Expanding Their Range - Washington Wire - WSJ

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/wo...20pirates.html

Long-range Somali Piracy Could Affect Insurance Costs, Conditions

Anyone that takes their boats into the waters surrounding that area is stepping well beyond the bounds of reasonable safety, unless they have a personal Security Escort along side. Even then they could still be exposed to small arms and rocket fire.

So except for a few Rambo Sailors who believe they are smarter than the Pirates, why would you place your family and vessel in peril?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

Without western technology there would be no pirates.

Sorry, what? Bluebeard, Treasure Island, letters of marque, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, and all that...THOSE were the good ole (pirate) days...and they were decidedly low-tech.

And what part of the modern Somali pirate's arsenal is particularly western? The far-east boats and motors? The Russian weapons? The Chinese radios? The homegrown anarchy and desperation?

Anyway I'm with you and the majority, I think. We sail for pleasure and personal growth. There's so much new, unique and safer cruising grounds available that it makes no sense to risk yourself, your crew, your boat, your family's finances, or the lives of seamen and soldiers by taking a pleasure boat through a known lawless area.

[Jane.Joy]

Originally Posted by jeremiason

Anyone that takes their boats into the waters surrounding that area is stepping well beyond the bounds of reasonable safety....

Everybody has their own "bounds" and their own definitions of "reasonable." Some folks, Tom, would say that YOU are beyond the bounds, for hanging out in Panama; or that I am beyond the bounds, for hanging in Colombia. Or what about (more examples close to "home") boats in the Rio Dulce, or Caribbean cruisers who remain in the hurricane box all summer long?

If someone has a tolerance for risk or a way of defining risk that is different from mine, I wouldn't necessarily say the person was UNREASONABLE. (Unless he/she was doing something SERIOUSLY crazy like bungee-jumping, of course. )

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Jane.Joy

Everybody has their own "bounds" and their own definitions of "reasonable." ...

If someone has a tolerance for risk or a way of defining risk that is different from mine, I wouldn't necessarily say the person was UNREASONABLE.

If you're saying that a person is entitled to take any risk for which they are willing to bear all responsibility for their actions... I'd agree. I expect you've taken reasonable precautions about your health and security while you are in Columbia. Where I draw the line is when a person voluntarily chooses known extreme risky action, and some naval patrol or expeditionary force has to then risk their lives to rescue said idiot person. That's pretty clear-cut UNREASONABLE.

[Jane.Joy]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Where I draw the line is when a person voluntarily chooses known extreme risky action, and some naval patrol or expeditionary force has to then risk their lives to rescue said idiot person. That's pretty clear-cut UNREASONABLE.

Ah, THERE is the rub. Who is drawing the line and where are they drawing it?

And yes, I agree, we must weigh the risks carefully and consider the impact of our choices on others.